When Republicans and their editorial board surrogates argue for an all-cuts budget, they routinely decry the spurt in state spending over the past couple years as evidence that state spending is out of control. Long term trends however, show quite the opposite.
Above is an OFM chart that tracks growth in the number of full time state employees versus growth in population, and as you can see, the two numbers track quite closely. This is an imprecise metric, as demographic shifts impose varying demands on state government (for example, the current surge in K-12 enrollment dictates the hiring of more teachers), but it clearly doesn’t indicate a state goverment that’s out of control.
I’m just sayin’.
Are you fucking kidding me???!!!
Since 1970 (when that chart starts) the productivity of workers has skyrocketed (think computers, systems automation, etc.). Yet the productivity hasn’t budged for public workers in relation to the population they serve. That chart’s a fucking testament to inefficiency.
We might also observe that the chart shows 1 state full-time employee equivalent per 50 state residents in 1970, versus 1 FTE per almost 60 residents today.
1: “Yet the productivity hasn’t budged for public workers in relation to the population they serve.”
Talk about pulling nonsense from one’s ass. Where do you wingnuts get this notion that it’s okay to “support” an argument with ideological mantras rather than facts?
@1
Voters have mandated that we have smaller class sizes in our schools than we did in ’70. So we need more teachers relative to population, not fewer.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act wasn’t around in ’70 (it passed in ’75). That adds a chunk of folks onto the states payroll. It also means that people with disabilities aren’t placed in squalid institutions and learn to be a lot higher functioning, which saves the state money in the long run.
Greater population means more damage and shorter life spans on roads and bridges= a larger DOT.
Just a few examples.
Thanks for the data mining.
Here’s something I think would be useful: post some data about the annual growth in the amounts paid to the big unions, and the corresponding FTE growth rates. In other words, take for example the METRO payments to the ATU locals membership each year, and how many FTE’s does METRO obtain for those payments. METRO is bleating about needing more taxes – I’d like to look at some of it’s big expenses and see whether those might be the problem.
Are we seeing efficiencies by the public workforce in that area? If not, why not?
@3
#1 Seems to think all state workers sit around with 10 Keys and big green ledger sheets.
@3: I pulled the data from the chart – it shows the ratio of state workers to the population remaining constant despite worker productivity everywhere else increasing dramatically. I’d try and dumb it down further for you, but you still wouldn’t get it.
@4: We have far fewer students in public schools as a percentage of overall population than we did in ’70. The number of employees doing IDEA work is a tiny fraction of the overall number of employees on the state payroll. By the same token, many of the tasks prevously done by the state government are being done by local government (transportation planning being one example). If the chart showed local government employees as well the ratio of public sector employees to population would look terrible.
Learn to read data!!
@6: that chart makes it look like they sit around with their thumbs up their ass . . ..
“This is an imprecise metric, as demographic shifts impose varying demands on state government (for example, the current surge in K-12 enrollment dictates the hiring of more teachers)”
Teachers are hired by local governments (e.g., Seattle School District). If that chart’s just of state employees local school district employees wouldn’t show up on it.
Bunch of fucking retards here . . . .
The number of employees doing IDEA work is a tiny fraction of the overall number of employees on the state payroll.
Yep, it sure is. But, it is an example of an additional responsibility the state has, that it didn’t have in ’70. The state has more responsibilities now than it did in ’70, not fewer.
@9
Teachers are state employees. Same with lowly lab techs working on research projects up at the UW.
@9
State government does a lot more than it did back in the day. It’s a valid, but generally losing, argument to say that we should strip it of those extra responsibilities. Arguing that the state government has fewer responsibilities today than it did in ’70 is pure fantasy.
@ 7
@3: I pulled the data from the chart – it shows the ratio of state workers to the population remaining constant despite worker productivity everywhere else increasing dramatically.
PL didn’t quote your statement about the data. He quoted your statement about the expected relationship between productivity increases across the entire economy vis-a-vis productivity increases in one sector of the economy.
Your statement assumes, without any supporting evidence whatsoever (indeed despite evidence to the contrary), that changes in technology affect all sectors of the economy equally.
I’d try and dumb it down further for you, but you still wouldn’t get it.
Why try to further dumb down a statement that was pretty idiotic in the first place?
@10, 11: The state does not have more responsibilities overall: local governments have taken over much of its work (in transportation and law enforcement for example). Teachers may be included in that chart, but even with smaller class size req.’s the number of kids in public schools as a percentage of overall population is much smaller, so the number of teachers wouldn’t grow at the same rate as the population.
What that chart shows is an overall employee productivity trend that is terrible.
“Your statement assumes, without any supporting evidence whatsoever (indeed despite evidence to the contrary), that changes in technology affect all sectors of the economy equally.”
It isn’t technology alone that accounts for the vast increases in worker productivity everywhere it seems but when it comes to Washington State government employees. However, smart technology use certainly plays a big part in productivity gains of workers in other fields. Given the huge expenditures on technology by Washington State government we sure the should see some productivity gains from it. The fact that we aren’t begs the question of why that might be.
Who are all these state employees NOT benefitting from the myriad advances in technology since 1970? There’d have to be a shitload of ’em somewhere to make the data the chart shows look like that . . ..
nob @ 7 — If you think you pulled the data from the chart, and that it showed a constant ratio, you flunk math and/or data literacy.
Any quant geek can see at a glance that the chart shows a declining FTE/pop ratio (since the scaled difference is roughly constant, while the denominator more than doubles.
Less numerically literate readers wouldn’t see this relationship at a glance, but they would if they pulled the numbers and did the math … unless they totally screwed up the math, or misread the numbers.
Show your work, and we’ll all have a good laugh at your expense.
@1 Apparently there’s at least one idiot in this thread who thinks state government is an assembly line spewing out widgets.
What those data show are that the population increased at the same rate as State employee FTEs.
I’ll speculate that a good percentage of state employees are more productive than their 1970 counterparts (systems automation, computers, better communication devices, etc, would account for that).
However, that means there’s got to be a huge number of other state employees who are far less productive than their 1970 counterparts (otherwise the rate of increase of state FTE’s would have been less than the population growth rate).
Now if somebody can describe for me who these many “less productive” state employees are (where they work, what they do) then maybe there’s a rational explanation. So who’s this group of State FTE’s that is offsetting the productivity gains other State FTE’s are realizing?
The main thing to understand about the productivity increases in the American economy since 1970 is that every cent of it went into the pockets of capitalists and labor didn’t get a penny of it.
11 “Same with lowly lab techs working on research projects up at the UW.”
Actually, research employees’ pay comes out of the investigators’ grant funding. This is in addition to “indirect costs” that the University takes from the grant to cover facilities and overhead.
7, 10 – Apart from a few janitors and gardeners, the number of state employees who aren’t doing “idea work” is about zilch.
Actually, this all looks pretty good, considering that in general the demand for infrastructure and social services should be expected to increase exponentially with population density.
@14 “What that chart shows is an overall employee productivity trend that is terrible.”
So you think the underpaid slaves should work even harder? That a DSHS daycare licenser with 300 licensees to supervise should have 500? That a child support collection caseworker with 500 cases should have 1,000 cases? That a state patrol officer with 100 miles of highway to patrol should be required to patrol 150 miles? That a game warden responsible for preventing poaching in 3 counties should be assigned 5 counties? You are an idiot.
“Above is an OFM chart that tracks growth in the number of full time state employees versus growth in population, and as you can see, the two numbers track quite closely.”
And that is a BAD thing, unless there’s a good explanation that runs like this: “The state has had to hire 50,000 people to do X and Y in a relatively unproductive way since 1970.” Now if someone’s got an explanation like that fine, let’s hear it.
And factor in the spending on FTE’s at local governments, which do some of the work state employees did back in the day. The growth rate of state employees should be far less than the growth rate of the population over that almost four decade span because of the factors that increased productivity elsewhere UNLESS there’s some new set of tasks unique to state government employees that can’t benefit from those factors that increased productivity elsewhere. If that’s the case, go ahead and explain it.
@ 15
It isn’t technology alone that accounts for the vast increases in worker productivity everywhere it seems but when it comes to Washington State government employees.
First of all, unless you’re positing some kind of genetic mutation that has occurred in human beings since 1970, any change in productivity is, by definition, the result of changes in technology.
Secondly, you can’t rehabilitate a flawed assumption simply by changing the wording. You’re comparing changes in productivity over all sectors, and expect that change to be reflected equally among the various sectors. As I pointed out, that assumption is false.
It would certainly make sense to compare changes in the productivity of Washington State employees to changes in the productivity of other government sector workers, but that’s not the comparison you’re trying to make.
ATJ is right. We really do need better trolls.
I’m glad I don’t work anymore. Public service gets old pretty fast when the public you serve consists of people like nob.
A DEMOCRATIC governor and a DEMOCRATIC legislature are responding to declining revenues caused by Republican economic mismanagement by CUTTING SPENDING and SLASHING PROGRAMS and the wingnuts are bitching about it. In a logical universe you’d expect them to dance in the streets singing “Hallelujah!” but these asswipes are anything but logical. They’ll complain about literally anything simply because they like to listen to themselves.
Nob… my post is based on actual numbers. Your comments are based on speculation and hyperbole. Furthermore, the numbers on growth in FTEs is consistent with the numbers on growth in spending vs. growth in personal income, and as I’ll show in a later post, consistent with growth in revenues vs. growth in population plus inflation.
WA state government growth is not out of control by any reasonable measure.
@ 24
The growth rate of state employees should be far less than the growth rate of the population over that almost four decade span because of the factors that increased productivity elsewhere…
Two of us have already challenged the validity of this assumption. Either produce data to show that this assumption is valid, or please stop using it as the basis for your argument.
@23: Your examples prove my point. The rate of increase of DSHS daycare licensee overseers has NOT increased at the same rate as the population. Same with child support collection caseworkers (a task largely done by county employees in prosecutors’ offices, anyway). The number of state patrol officers out in cars haven’t increased at the same rate as the population. So why has FTE growth rate overall increased so dramatically. There must be some huge cohort of state employees that is far less productive than the average state employee in 1970.
I agree with cutting the funding for the two education initiatives. They never should have been funded in the first place from the existing revenue base. The voters who approved these initiatives voted in the same election against the taxes to fund them; the voters should have been told, “You don’t get this stuff until you agree to pay for it.”
It would be interesting to see what the FTE chart looks like per unit of production for Boeing airplanes, taking into consideration all the people working in jobs that were outsourced to vendors and foreign countries.
1. nob spews:
BINGO!!
Goldy’s simplistic approach correlating State Spending and Population precludes any EFFICIENCIES or ECONOMIES OF SCALE.
At a time when technology ought to increase productivity exponentially…in Goldy’s World, that does not compute because Goldy started with and conclusion and has been seeking data to prove it….rather than dig into the expenditures objectively and look for inefficiencies and failed Programs.
Bad Try Goldy==No Sale!
Here’s some simple math for you wingnuts: Workers who have less money to spend because they’ve lost their jobs or had their wages cut will buy less from wingnut-owned businesses.
@29: I already posted that if there is some set of post-1970 tasks that are different and require many, many state FTE’s then there’d be a rational explanation for why the productivity gains some state employees must have acheived are being offset completely when you look at the overall picture. So you tell me – is there some big cohort of state employees involved in some new undertaking that doesn’t benefit from technology? I’m not aware of any.
32. Roger Rabbit spews:
It would be interesting to see what the FTE chart looks like per unit of production for Boeing airplanes
nob — OK, we both flunk, and there’s a laugh at my expense, too.
I typo’d a 2 for a 3, and got the ratios wrong.
You still think the chart shows proportionate growth, and you didn’t even pull the numbers or do the math like you pretended.
FTE growth is more than population-proportionate (~80 pop/FTE in 1970), and the debate must be settled on broader grounds (like who these people are and what have we asked them to do).
@ 35
I already posted that if there is some set of post-1970 tasks that are different and require many
So far, every comment you’ve posted is based on comparing the productivity of government sector employees to the productivity of employees in the entire economy. That’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.
When you have an apples-to-apples comparison (Washington State employees vis-a-vis all government sector employees), then you might have an argument. So, far, however, you’ve provided absolutely no information that would justify the increases in productivity that you believe to be applicable.
All you’re doing is begging the question.
“Nob… my post is based on actual numbers. Your comments are based speculation and hyperbole.”
Let me make this simple. If there’s a reason that state employees can’t serve relatively more people per-capita now, especially in light of technology-based productivity gains and the growth of local governments, then explain what it is.
Rather than focus on how to more cost-effectively run State Government and eliminate duplicity & ineffective Programs…the entire focus is now on how to pick the taxpayers pocket.
Once again, Goldy fails to dig into the cost of government and is the Union buttboy.
Pathetic Goldy.
Why won’t you dig into the Budget and look for things that are Discretionary or failed Programs or more cost-effective ways to deliver services??
Is it too hard for you?
Or do you know it’s possible and just want to be the buttboy?
Goldy is telling us there is absolutely no waste in State Government.
I’ll say it again–
The State Legtislators and Governor owe it to taxpayers to turn over every rock, ID Mandatory vs. Discretionary expenses and look for ways to improve efficiency BEFORE they talk about Tax or Fee increases!
@35 A supreme court justice deciding a case does it pretty much the same way in 2009 that he/she did it in 1970, and it takes just about as long now to make a decision and write an opinion as it did then.
A state patrol officer who needed an hour to patrol a 60-mile stretch of highway driving at 60 mph in 1970 still needs an hour to patrol a 60-mile stretch of highway driving at 60 mph in 2009.
It still takes the same number of corrections officers to subdue a violent inmate in 2009 as it did in 1970.
In fact, productivity of state workers has increased in a lot of areas. The Employment Security Department processes unemployment claims with far fewer workers than it did 30 years ago. There are automated phone systems and fewer people handling incoming phone calls today. Many paperwork functions have been speeded up or eliminated by computers. State workers, in general, have been expected to keep up with the productivity improvements that have occurred elsewhere in the economy. A big part of the reason this doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer FTE’s per 100,000 population is because they’re expected to handle more tasks and provide more services today.
@40 You want to eliminate duplicity from government? Really? Well, I know how to do that — vote the Republicans out of office!
@40 Would you like to give us a list?
You see, this is the same old wingnut bullshit — they claim vast savings can be achieved by eliminating waste, but when you ask them to get specific about what spending they think is wasteful, they always tell you to go find it! The reasonable inference is they don’t know of any wasteful specific and are just blowing smoke out of their asses.
correction @44
wasteful spending, not wasteful specific
“So, far, however, you’ve provided absolutely no information that would justify the increases in productivity that you believe to be applicable.”
The state has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on IT infrastructure since 1970. Obviously that spending has made many, if not most, state employees more productive than their 1970 counterparts (in DOL, DOR, DOJ, etc, etc, etc,).
Can you identify the reasons the balance of the state employee group needed to grow so much? I can’t see why overall the FTE growth rate would need to be so great for so long.
@30 I’m going to take this ignorant comment apart piece by piece.
“The rate of increase of DSHS daycare licensee overseers has NOT increased at the same rate as the population.”
How do you know without the specific data?
“Same with child support collection caseworkers (a task largely done by county employees in prosecutors’ offices, anyway).”
This statement is flat-ass false. The counties’ role in child support collection is essentially none, except for the handful of deputy prosecuting attorneys who get paternity orders and handle contempt proceedings for the DSHS Division of Child Support offices. All of the collection of money, and almost all of the enforcement work, is handled by DSHS caseworkers.
“The number of state patrol officers out in cars haven’t increased at the same rate as the population.”
How do you know? Do you have the data? Do you know what the data are?
“So why has FTE growth rate overall increased so dramatically.”
It hasn’t, dummy! FTEs have grown at the same rate as population, which means the FTE growth rate is flat, as in “zero.” That’s the whole point of the OFM chart that Goldy posted above. Don’t you know how to read a fucking graph? You’re an idiot.
@46 I can think of one reason right off the top of my head: We’re putting more people in prison for non-violent drug offenses, which means we need more prisons, which means we need more people to staff prisons.
@ 46
The state has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on IT infrastructure since 1970. Obviously that spending has made many, if not most, state employees more productive than their 1970 counterparts (in DOL, DOR, DOJ, etc, etc, etc,).
Actually, that’s not at all obvious. Old systems simply start breaking down, and need to be replaced without a substantive change in worker productivity.
It’s analogous to resurfacing highways due to wear and tear. The resurfacing doesn’t increase the carrying capacity of the highway.
You need a proper base-line comparison, and the proper base-line comparison is changes in productivity for all government workers. Only then can you make substantive statements about the expected changes in the productivity of Washington State employees.
@20
My understanding is that their pay comes from all over the place, depending on who’s funding the research and that regardless of where the funding comes from they are state employees. The real point being that their positions as well as half the fields they’re doing research in didn’t exist in ’70. And contrary to Nob’s nonsense state governments responsibilities have grown since ’70.
Hell, the Right’s main argument for the last 20 years has been that states and the federal government have taken on to many responsibilities and that we should go back to how it was back in the day.
41 “A state patrol officer who needed an hour to patrol a 60-mile stretch of highway driving at 60 mph in 1970 still needs an hour to patrol a 60-mile stretch of highway driving at 60 mph in 2009.
Let’s say that 60-mile stretch was something like 522 or the Redmond/Fall City Road. In 1970 it was so lightly used that a caterpillar could crawl across it with almost no chance of getting squished. Now it’s a major commuter route populated by thousands of jerk-offs out to show each other what studmuffins they are. It’s going to keep three or four officers busy handing out tickets for driving-with-head-up-ass and officiating at all the fender-benders and worse.
Add to this the extra burden all that puts on the courts, the jails, the hospitals….get the idea?
@50 Of course, their vision of government is the government that existed in 1880.
We could eliminate many of these state workers if we just did away with victimless crimes and the right wing asshole’s favorite 3-strikes and you’re out. We could also afford to pay the salaries of the workers we need if we stopped giving churches (nothing more than businesses posing as spiritualists) tax breaks. Let’s see if the Publicans are serious about cutting spending. Let’s see em agree to this!
I think what would make the chart more compelling and remove a lot of conjecture is a 3rd set of data: the yearly state budget (adjusted for inflation)
Do you think the budget grew at the same linear rate of population and FTE’s?
@53 “(nothing more than businesses posing as spiritualists)”
Ain’t that the truth!
Of course I should mention that this new found desire by the hypocrites on the right to control spending is about 8 years too late as far as their boy AWOL Bush who created the largest US budget in history along with the largest deficit during his stint in Crawford, er I mean the White House.
I’m with those who think “nob” has got it all wrong. Scale issues aside, it merely shows the NUMBER of state employees and the NUMBER of people in the state.
What it does not show is what the state employees are doing. One cannot make assumptions about that from the data presented.
And 54 nolaguy:
It would prove nothing either way.
“WA state government growth is not out of control by any reasonable measure.”
Single funniest line ever written by Comrade Goldstein….
How about this…
The spending growth is so out of control, despite a 2008 revenue year that brought in more money than any year on record, Washington state has spent it’s way into terminal debt… Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood liberal….
Keep up the talking points Goldy…
“I’m with those who think “nob” has got it all wrong. Scale issues aside, it merely shows the NUMBER of state employees and the NUMBER of people in the state.
“What it does not show is what the state employees are doing.”
It’s impossible to say what all those state employees are doing. If they are doing work that can’t be made more productive by technology, then they can’t serve relatively more people than in 1970. If they’re able to leverage technology to be more productive, then they can serve relatively more people.
Some government jobs are comparable to private sector jobs, and they can leverage technology. Others, not so much.
It’s just too tough to parse these data in any meaningful way. But yes, I’m against what Nob is doing.
@56
Until this year……
Obama will take care of that in his first budget
re 1: Productivity has soared because fewer workers are forced to do the work for less money and longer hours.
Por ejemplo: If fewer workers produce less goods now than they did in 1970, but they produce more units per person, then it is said that worker productivity has gone up.
Is that deceptive?
You bet it is.
Daddy Love,
If the inflation adjusted state budget was flat, wouldn’t that prove that the state was more efficient in its spending?
It would be supporting a higher population and more FTE’s with a lower cost per citizen. More bang for the buck if you will.
It is sooooooo typical of the LEFT to focus on how to seperate taxpayers from more of their money. If they spent as much energy on making government less intrusive and more cost-effective, we wouldn’t have a problem.
Shows a clear difference between the mentality of LEFTISTS and Conservatives.
There are areas of state services where demand has increased far faster than population. For example I’d wager the number of day cares or chiropractors per capita has gone up substantially since 1970. CPS caseloads have gone up because reporting requirements are far more stringent and people are far more aware of the problem than they used to be.
Furthermore there are functions like performance audits that didn’t exist in 1970 and requires people to do them.
Resnubicans are just plane ass holes with their dicks in their mouths.
Roger Rabbit asked for specific ways to balance the Budget.
Take a look at this…105 ways in 105 days
http://www.105days.com/
I’m sure you KLOWNS won’t even bother to consider any of these simple ideas that really add up because you are obsessed with tax increases and bigger government.
You asked Rog–here’s a start.
@62
Well . . .
It appears that Daddy Love is a tad out of step with his employer, who claims they can make government more efficient:
[http://www.microsoft.com/industry/government/guides/Gov20.mspx]
not less.
Of course, when government chooses to operate this way:
[http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_032509WAB-health-care-contributions-KS.6eb5d530.html?btm]
all that dandy Gov 2.0 software will never have an opportunity to “Make government by the people work better for the people.”
Incidentally, Governor Gregoire is clearly convinced the state can significantly streamline itself:
[http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/reform/]
That puts her a step or two ahead of some of the HA faithful.
…but of course it’s all incidental. Honking at the hard workers serving the public just belittles the honker …
Dave @ 67
It appears that Daddy Love is a tad out of step with his employer
Or, Dave has difficulty understanding ambiguity in the word “efficient” in the two different contexts.
You seem to bear a bit of animosity toward Microsoft, Dave. Around here, people who show animosity toward Microsoft tend to be either Mac people or people who applied at Microsoft and couldn’t get a job there. Which category applies to you?
I’m not in to software I think it was on seattletimes blog. last summer how a state worker streamlined this program to look up donors.
Microsoft I doubt would have done any better.
That state employee snookered the state in hiring him. Another wasteful buck.
There is a lot of good programmers out there however, they have one thing missing like a multi-billion dollar blg.
@70 Around here, people who show animosity toward Microsoft tend to be either Mac people or people who applied at Microsoft and couldn’t get a job there.
———–
Or . . . ANY person or IT department who has ever used a Microsoft product:
Tricky Windows Worm Wallops Millions
“A sneaky computer worm that uses a virtual Swiss army knife of attack techniques has infected millions of Microsoft Windows PCs, and appears to be spreading at a fairly rapid pace, security experts warn. Also, while infected PCs could be…”
[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/tricky_windows_worm_wallops_mi.html]
Critical IE, Exchange Flaws in Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday
“Microsoft Corp. today released four patch bundles to fix at least eight security vulnerabilities in PCs powered by its Windows operating system and other software. The fixes are available through Microsoft Update or via Automatic Updates. Half of the flaws…”
[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/02/critical_ie_exchange_flaws_in.html]
Microsoft: Big Security Hole in All IE Versions
“On Wednesday, Security Fix warned readers about a newly-discovered security hole in Internet Explorer 7. I’m posting this again because Microsoft now says the flaw affects all supported versions of IE, and because security experts are warning that a large…”
[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/12/microsoft_big_security_hole_in.html]
Microsoft Plugs at Least 28 Security Holes
“Microsoft has an early holiday present for Windows users: A batch of eight software updates that plug at least 28 security holes in the widely-used operating system and other Microsoft products. Six out of eight of the update bundles earned…”
[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/12/microsoft_plugs_at_least_28_se.html]
Data-Stealing Trojan Exploiting Just-Patched Windows Flaw
“Microsoft Windows users who have not yet applied the security update that Redmond released yesterday should take a minute to do that now: Security experts are warning that at least one Trojan horse program with apparent spreading capabilities is in…”
[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/10/data-stealing_trojan_exploitin.html]
Microsoft Patches 26 Security Holes
“Microsoft today released updates to fix at least 26 security vulnerabilities in its Windows operating systems and other software. At least 17 of those flaws earned Microsoft’s “critical” rating, meaning they could be exploited to break into vulnerable systems with…”
[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/08/microsoft_patches_26_security.html]
And this is all within the last 6 months! Maybe Microsoft should set their standards for hiring programmers a little higher, eh? These days, the best people are knocking down Google’s doors, not Microsoft’s, and it shows in the products and innovation.
Incidentally, YOU program for Microsoft, right?
What mentally-crippled fucking idiot thinks that there should be a parallel between population increases and government employees?
That’s like saying there is a causal link between homosexuality and birthday cake. Get real!
Get over yourself already!
@ 72
Maybe Microsoft should set their standards for hiring programmers a little higher, eh?
Really? What about this?
Or how about this?
Incidentally, YOU program for Microsoft, right?
As a matter of fact, yes. I happen to be rather good at it. How about you?
@ 75
Really? What about this?
No company has come even REMOTELY close to Microsoft in placing businesses and consumers at risk with poorly written software full of security holes. Microsoft put on a big effort a while back to initiate new practices that would turn this IMMENSE threat around, but like many Microsoft initiatives it was just another big egg. This has become almost standard practice for YOUR company:
“For a total 284 days in 2006 (or more than nine months out of the year), exploit code for known, unpatched critical flaws in pre-IE7 versions of the browser was publicly available on the Internet. Likewise, there were at least 98 days last year in which no software fixes from Microsoft were available to fix IE flaws that criminals were actively using to steal personal and financial data from users.”
[http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/internet_explorer_unsafe_for_2.html]
It’s really quite stunning that Microsoft has produced so many billionaires/millionaires while putting this type of stuff out. Conflicker alone has consumed an immense amount of people’s time and money . . . and we’ll see what tomorrow brings.
VISTA, the product of years of effort AND delays AND hyperbole has been another big flop. Windows 7 may well determine the future of the company.
Other, more innovative companies are eating away at your core businesses, and IE has been in a downward trajectory for years as competitors have rolled out better browsers (though IE 8 is a big improvement – just too late out the door).
Your stock reflects all of this – it’s back to 1997 levels:
[http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT]
That’s 12 years ago, which is absolutely amazing . . . and absolutely damming. Oracle, IBM, Apple and Google and have seriously outperformed your stock, and the first three have seriously outperformed MSFT since 1997.
As a matter of fact, yes. I happen to be rather good at it
I’m sure you’re very good at what you do there.